New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-03-01
IS THE CHARTER INVAL
AN ATTACK ON THE MANHATTAN ROADS.
c. p SHAW SAYS THE COURT OF APPEALS Is
AGAINST THEM.

c. p SHAW SAYS THE COURT OF APfLAL' 10
AGAINST THEM
Charles p. Shaw, the counsel OF the Caoie oompany'
Yesterday sent Mayor Hewitt letter. which, IN ehec
attacks the validity of the charter Of the Manhattan h
way Company. The occasion for this MI Shaw mas In
bis opposon TO the petition OF Manhattan Company
for the appointment OF commissioners, under the Kappa
Transit Act lay out the proposed elevated routes u
the North and East River ferries. Mr. Shaw protests
against the Mayors granting the petition OF tue company
on the ground that 1t is no longer corporation ana hat
all its rights and franchises have been forfeited to the
Supervisors OF the County OF New-1orK, meaning the
Common Council.
The chief ground on which Mr. Shaw makes his claim
is that the Court of Appeals held In the Cable Railway
matter that that company had not provided in Its articles
of incorporation that should forfeit all Its franchises
OF roads completed well not bu-in case 1t dill not
complete all the routes In its sysem within prescribed
time The Gable Company copied the forfeiture clause
from the forfeiture clause In the articles of
the Manhattan Company, both being No. and both
roads being organized under the law OF 1879 known rs
the Rapid Transit Act 1t Is well known that the elevated
system ORIGINALLY embraced other than those built
notably To the ferries.
MIR Shaw also urges that the courts objections TO the
Cable Companys plans apply equally to the Manhattan
same in all respects, save as to motive power Inc
Mayors IL also called to resolution syn NOT
acted npassed 10y the Board Of Al ermen In March,
Iss3cang on The GoTpGron ., couI tSd
W,rbotton franchises for the rcasous given.
Mr. shaw assers that the Cable Company ia now valid
corporation because 1t has red itsdcfec under encr
stoiutes but that the Manhattan Company cannot do
this because ire time limit for the construction OF us
other routes has long ago eNpred;
Early In January last the Manhattan company Waue
an application to the supreme Court TO apl ONT com
mission 10 condemn certain property IN Riyeraye, on
The Harlem River. The wa. known as The matter
of Ingraham." Gray davenport appeared az counsel
against the COMPANY The corporation nad S@nSet 10
the owner. II then began condemnation proceed
Its loo I
grounds advanced by Mr.. shaw yesterday. He called At
,et,"n ~ tbe net Of sSi which provided that the
missioners should have the power 70 determine what
route, should bc abandoned but ~ tho end OF tho ar
the words Except IN Wesichester and Ncw'l"rh
Counties" ,
Mr. Gray when asked about the matter Yesterday, said
"In looking p some means to oppose the Manhattan APP
pcaton came to the conclusion that It's charter de-
iectiye. and presented that point A. soon ~ | did
fHl amount claimed. and tho case was settled"
Whcn asked for the special points OF MS
si ~, so,i The points prcscntcd by Mr. shaw arc
rs far from my position they might be- cannot say
Ii was learned from ono associated With the case that
few days a-o Mr. Gray sent 10 the County ,Ierk
to his brief aud tho accompanying AFFIDAVIT IN me
cn.e but they were not to be- foand. Mr. Gray was
a-kel why be- had not investigated the mater 20,
what wanted FOR the property he said' ana III"
II is reported that the Manhattan Company {, now
seeking legislation at Albany Ia cure the ALLEGED iee1s
In IL articles The bill cnboiyi ing ne necessary 'os.
ton is supposed To- b. hn'Eu " c buTS D Ga ran
o.tcusiby IN the interest ~ 'i iNt ,''i'.
~ Company which has lad ont routes 10 Wc'tchr ser ana
New. York Counties. AMI 30 is nor 'oN'i'u. i'
r,,lri 10 forfeiture clauses. hy the law OF l-9b.
M. hi was recently rcfcrcd 10 the Committee on KAN
roads. and was tabled. after the committee hat been l"h
mat IL was ,lr-rucd help the Manhattan road hl-
I'M proposes au amendment To the laws OF 1872 ana
par: az 10 rcad,
IL the railway railway upon any parts par OF anI
portion o. jc rolc routes NOT D, ~ board CHANGED or
allowed 10 dlurd shall not have b'"u "n-iu'i" anu
made ready IN ot,f.tlu within tie tuc uort'oi" hA'
ADJ fr. errrn therefor m" uotrl extend ami NIX an,
,cterm ne anew tnr within Wnch suoh Halfway OF t~I
way, shall he completed
II said that this VII not only relieve the Mauhat an
Of aryfy bat also enable Il to extend It's roue TO the
ferries a. originally contemplated.
The biil VIII Doe taken uP TO-DAY NJ nav - k"ut Nv
70 nglt g. Mr. Eapao, ~ Davies 4 Harailo' Went 10
Albany NJ - - M yesterday. In he afternoon nr ann
Nr Da,i,s were IN consultation with David DHiI'
Held fur two hours. Before going Nr Elpaln ld
Latc not rad Nr ~hnV's letter The Court OF Np
pcnls said in It's opinion that the Manhh IAN case MO-
already been passed up aud was entirely distinct ia
the matter uf fugtahfW the case Was settled oul 4" court
That Is nll cau say about H. know nothing about tue
Burns Dill" 80, ,,,.... ...,-
Russell, sage and other directors Of the Manhattan ircr
lnaulrr- on fht, point Ia Davies kapNlo y >. Van
rpnsl wa. Albany when the Barns hl! was before
tl. committee Almrn Guo lwln said Yesterday tiat Mr
Vaudcrpoel was other business than hahhhttHb
matter l., fudrc Robertson represents the SuDuipih
Company before the committee